Does The Koran Teach "Kill The Infidels"

[Smoke]

Some follow their own imaginings and some may not. It does not alter the fact that there is no jizyah in existence. God has settled the matter.

What other parts of the Qur'an are obsolete?

 

[Popeyesays]

What other parts of the Qur'an are obsolete?

Shariah is obsolete, but then so is the Judaic priesthood from the Torah.

Neither Shariah nor the Priesthood have any authoritative structure anymore. That seems to be the very essence of senescence.

This is a simple consequence that no Revelation is forever. It suffers through a senescence just like it grew geometrically in its youth.

The same will be true of the Naha`i Revelation in its given time.

Regards,
Scott

 

[kai]

Some follow their own imaginings and some may not. It does not alter the fact that there is no jizyah in existence. God has settled the matter.

Regards,
Scott

actually it was world war one that stopped it therwise the Ottomans would still be collecting, and why do you keep stating sharia is obsolete when it is in fact making a comeback (or attempted comeback)

jizyah

Poll tax that early Islamic rulers demanded from their non-Muslim subjects.
This tax applied especially to followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism, who were tolerated in the practice of their religion because they were “peoples of the book.” Originally intended to be used for charitable purposes, the revenues from the jizya were paid into the private treasuries of rulers, and the Ottoman sultans used the proceeds to pay military expenses. Many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax.
Britannica Online Encyclopedia

 

[Popeyesays]

actually it was world war one that stopped it therwise the Ottomans would still be collecting, and why do you keep stating sharia is obsolete when it is in fact making a comeback (or attempted comeback)

jizyah

Poll tax that early Islamic rulers demanded from their non-Muslim subjects.
This tax applied especially to followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism, who were tolerated in the practice of their religion because they were “peoples of the book.” Originally intended to be used for charitable purposes, the revenues from the jizya were paid into the private treasuries of rulers, and the Ottoman sultans used the proceeds to pay military expenses. Many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax.
Britannica Online Encyclopedia

It ended with the Young Turk Rebellion of 1905--you know Kamal Attaturk. Abdu'l Hamid was the intended victim of two assassinatiuon attempts and was deposed in 1908. He died in captivity in February of 1918, but had been a prisoner since 1908.

It was the TUrkish constitutional government which entered World War One after the gifting of the Imperial battle cruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau to the TUrkish navy by the Germans. They had been trapped in the Med with the declaration of war and managed to avoid the British navy and find refuge in the Black Sea.
Regards,

Scott

 

[kai]

Partition
Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire happened in the aftermath of World War I. The empire was forced to submit to a complete partition. The process began with the signing of the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October 1918, followed 13 days later with the occupation of Istanbul; under the shadow of Turkish Courts-Martial of 1919-20 and the Malta exiles followed by the subsequent Treaty of Sèvres. Partition of its Middle Eastern territories under the mandates of Britain and France, cede the Turkish Mediterranean coast to Italy, the Turkish Aegean coast to Greece, cede the Turkish Straits and Sea of Marmara to the Allied powers as an international zone, and recognize the Wilsonian Armenia, an extension of Democratic Republic of Armenia in eastern Anatolia (the historic homeland of Armenians but which at the time was mostly inhabited by Turks and Kurds). Britain obtained virtually everything it had sought under the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement it had made with France in 1916 for the partitioning of the Middle East. The other powers of the Triple Entente, however, soon became entangled in the Turkish War of Independence.
Occupation of Istanbul along with the occupation of İzmir mobilized the establishment of the Turkish national movement, and led to the Turkish War of Independence[16] and the foundation of the Republic of Turkey.

Departure of Mehmed VI, last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, 1922


The Turkish national movement, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) resulted in the creation of the Grand National Assembly (Büyük Millet Meclisi) in Ankara on 23 April 1920, which refused to recognize the Ottoman government in Istanbul


interestimg subject source wiki

 

[gnostic]

Where does it say in 9:5 that only if the treaties are broken?

What does verse say before and after 9:5? (9:4 or 9:6) We can only see what context 9:5 is, when we know MORE than just a single snippet of passage. Does the surrounding passages say anything about broken treaties?

Can someone provide such quote from the Qur'an, please?

 

[gnostic]

YThe quote offered by Francine is not a very good translation.

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Neither Rodwell, nor Palmer translate it that way either.

Regards,
Scott

Sorry, Scott, but your translations don't ease me anymore than Francine's. Actually they sound worse.

So I would be killed if I don't pay jizya. Why should I pay, if these Muslims attacking me are my enemies. Either you pay the jizya, or you have to convert, or you die.

If that's not coercive conversion then what is it?

 

[Popeyesays]

Sorry, Scott, but your translations don't ease me anymore than Francine's. Actually they sound worse.

So I would be killed if I don't pay jizya. Why should I pay, if these Muslims attacking me are my enemies. Either you pay the jizya, or you have to, convert, or you die.

If that's not coercive conversion then what is it?

1) There is no Jizya anymore. There is no one to collect it.

2) The purpose of the Jizya was not to support the poor, but rather to provide for the cost of defense. Those who chose to pay the Jizyah did not pay other taxes nor were they required to give alms. Those who chose not to pay were required to bear arms for the defense of the country.

3) Jizyah was set at a lower rate than normal taxes because People of the Book were not paying alms for the poor.

4) The taxes of the time were not based on ability to pay. If Jesus had been alive it would have been a familiar situation--The Pharisees of His time did not like paying taxes to Caesar either. I am sure His advice would have been the same.

Regards,

Scott

 

[gnostic]

And if you don't want to pay jizya, enlist and convert? What then?

 

[Popeyesays]

And if you don't want to pay jizya, enlist and convert? What then?

At first it did require conversion, later on it did not. Persia for example had regiments of Christians'

If one DID convert then one was required to pay higher taxes anyway. It was not thrifty to pay the believer's tax rate rather than the rate of Jizyah.

Regards,

Scott

 

[kai]

At first it did require conversion, later on it did not. Persia for example had regiments of Christians'
If one DID convert then one was required to pay higher taxes anyway. It was not thrifty to pay the believer's tax rate rather than the rate of Jizyah.

Regards,

Scott

If by persian you mean sassanid they were not muslim

 

[Popeyesays]

If by persian you mean sassanid they were not muslim

It was Persia until the very late nineteenth century. And I was speaking of the Safavid Empire and the Qajar Dynasty in particulaqr.

Regards,
Scott

 

[gnostic]

You not reading me. Maybe I didn't make myself clear in my last reply.

"Enlist" as in "conscript".

As I said what if you don't want to pay any tax (including jizya or higher taxes), and you don't want to be conscripted? What happen then?

Would they sell people into slavery? Would they massacre the villages or towns? If people rebel against Muslim invaders, they would continue to slaughter until they surrender, wouldn't they?

 

[neves]

You not reading me. Maybe I didn't make myself clear in my last reply.

"Enlist" as in "conscript".

As I said what if you don't want to pay any tax (including jizya or higher taxes), and you don't want to be conscripted? What happen then?

Would they sell people into slavery? Would they massacre the villages or towns? If people rebel against Muslim invaders, they would continue to slaughter until they surrender, wouldn't they?

What any nation would do if you don’t obey the law... throw you in jail or extradite you from the land...

 

[kai]

It was Persia until the very late nineteenth century. And I was speaking of the Safavid Empire and the Qajar Dynasty in particulaqr.

Regards,
Scott

well you come up with some interesting subjects Scott, by christians do you maen the georgians etc conscripted into the armies of Agha Muhammed Khan

 

[Smoke]

If one DID convert then one was required to pay higher taxes anyway. It was not thrifty to pay the believer's tax rate rather than the rate of Jizyah.

That's often asserted, but I've never seen anyone give an example of a time and place where the jizya was less than the taxes paid by Muslims, nor do I know of any such example. Non-Muslims often did convert to be eligible to pay lower taxes, and Muslim rulers sometimes discouraged conversion because they didn't want to lose the higher taxes paid by non-Muslims.

We also haven't gone into the other ways in which non-Muslims were discriminated against.

 

[gnostic]

What any nation would do if you don’t obey the law... throw you in jail or extradite you from the land...

Would you follow a law of your invaders or conquerors?

Even today, the Muslim separatists/rebels in many countries refused to obey the laws of others, resorting to violence, particularly in guerrilla warfares, terrorism and mass abductions.

And I am not just talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. There are troubles brewing in many areas, Israel/Palestinians, Lebanon, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc.

It is interesting that Muslims often state that when they are conquerors, it is okay for them to tax people and that the people should not rebel against their laws, but it is not okay for them to pay tax or not okay to obey the law in country which they have no control.

Double standard and hypocrisy, don't you think?

 

[Popeyesays]

Non-Muslims were treated worse and worse as time went by. That is the normal course of events for a religion in its senescence. The inquisition would have made Jesus puke, but it was the same thing--a religion in senescence.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Would you follow a law of your invaders or conquerors?

Even today, the Muslim separatists/rebels in many countries refused to obey the laws of others, resorting to violence, particularly in guerrilla warfares, terrorism and mass abductions.

And I am not just talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. There are troubles brewing in many areas, Israel/Palestinians, Lebanon, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc.

It is interesting that Muslims often state that when they are conquerors, it is okay for them to tax people and that the people should not rebel against their laws, but it is not okay for them to pay tax or not okay to obey the law in country which they have no control.

Double standard and hypocrisy, don't you think?

I think you are combining the jizyah (poll tax) and the kharaj (land tax) into one thing when they were two. Kharaj was particularly prone to abuse.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

well you come up with some interesting subjects Scott, by christians do you maen the georgians etc conscripted into the armies of Agha Muhammed Khan

I was referring specifically to the Christian Regiments enlisted in the Persian Army from the late 1600's to the early 20th century.

They were Nestorian Christians. It is interesting to note that most of Muhammed's contact with Christians was also with Nestorians and that information probably colored the hadith and the Qur'an on the topic of the nature of Christ, the trinity and just exactly WHO died on the cross.

"
Nestorius (c. 386–c. 451) was a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Antioch in Syria (modern Turkey) and later became Archbishop of Constantinople. He taught that the human and divine aspects of Christ were distinct natures, not unified. He preached against the use of the title Mother of God (Theotokos) for the Virgin Mary and would only call her Mother of Christ (Christotokos). He also argued that God could not suffer on the cross, as he is omnipotent. Therefore, the human part of Christ died on the cross, but not the divine.
His opponents accused him of dividing Christ into two persons: they claimed that proposing that God the Word did not suffer and die on the cross, while Jesus the man did, or that God the Word was omniscient, while Jesus the man had limited knowledge, implied two separate persons with separate experiences.
Nestorius responded that he believed that Christ was indeed one person (Greek: prosopon). Opposed by Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431."

Wikipedia

emphasis added.

Regards,
Scott